• Abravanel’s World of Torah

    Abravanel’s World of Torah

    is an enticingly innovative yet thoroughly loyal rendition of a major fifteenth-century Hebrew classic.
    For the first time, Don Yitzchak Abravanel’s Bible commentary has become accessible IN ENGLISH.
      
    Order Now

Abravanel’s World of Torah: Series

Bible studies

  • Jacob’s Retirement

    Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
    time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
    offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
    commentator. Chapter 37 starts one of the Bible’s most disturbing – and protracted – scandals: the sale
    of Joseph by his brothers. The sibling’s recrimination, antagonism, conflict, and resolution accompany
    readers to the end of the book of Genesis.  But first we read of Jacob's retirement from physical labor.

    “And Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the
    land of Canaan.”

    Abravanel sets the scene of the selling of Joseph by first focusing on Jacob. “And Jacob settled in the
    land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” He asks: What information does the verse
    convey? We read in an earlier chapter: “And Jacob came unto Isaac his father to Mamre, to Kiriatharba,
    the same is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.” Since the Bible does not mention that Jacob
    left or traveled from Hebron, we may safely assume that Jacob settled there.

    Abravanel follows up with a second question. “And Jacob settled in the land where his father sojourned”
    does not need to spell out the obvious: “In the land of Canaan.” Bible students are fully aware that Isaac
    never left Canaan.

    According to Abravanel, there are two approaches to this chapter’s lead verses. They provide
    remarkable insights into Jacob’s mindset as he settled back home, in Canaan. This blog covers one of the
    approaches. See Abravanel’s World for the full treatment.

    Abravanel begins by characterizing Jacob during the Paddan-Aram years, when he worked for Laban. An
    ambitious go-getter, the patriarch doggedly pursued wealth and material acquisitions – day and night.

    From the moment Jacob returned to Isaac in Hebron, his priorities changed. Isaac’s home was wholly
    dedicated to spirituality and service to the Maker. Religious opportunity converged from two angles.
    One, the first patriarch Abraham set the right tone by establishing Hebron as a place well-suited for
    spiritual growth. Jacob’s father, Isaac, for his part, redoubled efforts in maintaining Hebron’s holy aura.
    Two, the land of Canaan is wired to inspire man to reach his full potential. God’s chosen land is a fount of divine revelation.

    No sooner had Jacob come home than he realigned his goals, himself. Acquiring money and increasing
    assets no longer interested him. Instead, Jacob sought solitude, and divine wisdom. He longed to follow
    in Abraham’s and Isaac’s footsteps.

    But, if Jacob retired, who would pick up the slack and oversee the vast flocks and family empire? The
    patriarch eyed his sons, all strapping young men. “And Jacob settled…” He had enough of the nomadic
    life, always on the move and lookout for pastures. Now, it was his sons’ turn to keep the business going.

    In sum, Jacob’s transition from entrepreneur to noble patriarch occurred when he reached Hebron.
    Learning timeless values from Abraham and Isaac, along with the proper ambience and location
    afforded by Canaan carried Jacob to ever higher religious awareness. Indeed, Jacob’s spiritual labor
    benefited from Hebron’s strong tailwinds, a sacred haunt.

  • Parashat Beshalach

    “And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the people go, that God led
    them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
    near, for God said: Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war,
    and they return to Egypt.”

    On our verse, readers readily note a difficulty with our verse. The Torah appears to disclose God’s
    motive for taking the escaped Jews via a desert, rather through the Coastal Route, that would have been
    a breeze. And it would have gotten the Jews to Canaan much faster.

    But what is written is not the underlying reason for God’s “peculiar” itinerary for His flock, as we shall
    soon discuss. Why does the Torah provide a feeble rationale (“Lest perhaps the people repent when
    they see war…”), when more meaty ones present themselves? Indeed, opting for a tenuous reason and
    omitting the real ones represents a glaring problem with the text.

    From the outset of the ten plagues, God was itching, you might say, to part the Red Sea, sending the
    Egyptians to Davy Jones’s locker. Below we bring three reasons to explain Heaven’s motive for leading
    the Hebrews away from the Coastal Road, instead, directing them via the divine cloud column and pillar
    of fire headlong into an arid wasteland.

    One has to do with the Hebrews leaving Egypt courtesy of and by permission of Pharoah. It was
    understood that the monarch authorized them to serve God in the desert per Moshe’s request: “Let my
    people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.” From the first meeting at the palace,
    the wilderness was the professed destination. For that reason, the Creator did not bring them out to the
    Coastal Route. It would have given Pharoah license to slander the prophet, calling him a liar. Further,
    Pharoah would have deduced that their destination was the land of the Philistines, with no intention to
    serve God in the desert. This is expressed by our verse: “And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the
    people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines…”

    The Torah stresses that Pharoah permitted the Jews to leave. It was understood that they would
    celebrate in a serene, albeit barren setting. For that reason, Hashem could not guide them to Canaan via
    the land of the Philistines, adjacent to Egypt. Such a plan would have brought the monarch to conclude
    that in the land of Philistines were where the encampment sought refuge.

    Two concerned another wrinkle God may have anticipated. Had the Hebrews traveled along the
    Philistine Road, there stood a strong likelihood that the Philistines would have girded for war. Jewish
    preparedness, let us say, was nil. The masses would not have mustered up the courage to fight. And
    given that Egypt was nigh, they would have returned to it, opting for enslavement. We have concluded
    the second reason. Before we continue to the third one, we interject a midrash, based on our verse.

    “Although that was near” allows for multiple interpretations. In Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, it is hinted that
    “although that was near” cloaks one of the very first Hebrew wars, one that ended in abject disaster. We
    speak about a misguided attempt by the Children of Efraim to hasten the liberation of Canaan. The
    impetuous tribe of Efraim marched headstrong out of Egypt and into the land of the Philistines, where
    they were soundly smashed. Two hundred thousand soldiers met death in their inglorious rush for
    redemption: “The Children of Efraim were as archers handling the bow, that turned back in the day of
    battle.”     Our verse states, “Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” It alludes to the annihilation of the tribe of Efraim. When the encampment witnesses Efraim’s carnage,
    their brothers’ bones strewn about on the Philistine Road, they will chant in unity: Let us return to
    Egypt.

    To summarize the second point, we put forth that God did not guide them along the Coastal Highway,
    rather He opted for the desert. A vital lapse of time (forty years!) would grant the Hebrews precious
    opportunity to thoroughly train for war. After decades in the wilderness, they would encounter Sichon’s,
    Og’s, and the Canaanites’ formidable forces, emerging victorious. Further, these enemies are based far,
    far away from Egypt. Geographical considerations would have given pause to the Hebrews about a
    return to their former slaveowners.

    Three is the most powerful and compelling. The Philistine Route offered no body of water. The Creator
    hungered to split the sea for the Jews, and to drown Egyptians in it (revenge for Egyptians drowning
    Hebrew babies). That necessitated the nation to be led into the desert. The Red Sea served as the plan’s
    centerpiece. Our section’s second verse says: “But God led the people about, by the way of the
    wilderness by the Red Sea…”

    We can prove our point by interjecting a Hebrew grammar rule. Specifically, it concerns the usage of the
    Hebrew letter vav, generally a conjunction meaning “and.” However, in Scripture a vav may also signal a
    root cause. For our purposes here, we will show how it works, and reframe the section’s second verse
    accordingly. “And God, in order to lead the people about by the way of the wilderness – because of the
    Red Sea…”

    Rendering the verse as we have provides the proper accent or tone. Consequently, we better
    understand God’s main rationale for doing what He did. That is, he led them into a desert, and not into
    Canaan via the Coastal Road, because of a highly-anticipated confrontation and divine rendezvous at the
    Red Sea with their heartless, quondam taskmasters and baby-killers.

     

  • Parashat Tetzaveh: An Excerpt

    “And you shall command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the
    light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. In the Tent of Meeting…Aharon and his sons shall set it in
    order, to burn from evening to morning before God…”

    ‘This section’s opening paragraphs seem disjointed because they switch theme tracks. Note that the
    lead verse talks about lighting the menorah before taking on the main subject – that of the priest’s
    special clothing. How should readers relate to this zigzag?


    Really, God’s command to Moshe regarding lighting the menorah was not intended as a divine order
    whose time had arrived, but rather as a prophetic heads-up…’

    Page 88 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

  • Parashat Va’era, First Aliyah

    “And I appeared unto Avraham, unto Yitzchak, and unto Yaakov, as God
    Almighty, but by My name [Hashem] I made Me not known to them.”
    Classic commentators struggled to make sense of our verse. Some hold that it means that God had not
    revealed Himself to them via the Ineffable name. Others posit that Hashem made promises to them, but
    did not fulfil them. Both positions are weak, as we shall now demonstrate.
    The first school missed the mark because the Torah writes that God, in His Ineffable name, did
    communicate with Avraham. In one instance, the Ineffable name entered into a covenant with Avraham
    (in Hebrew the brit bein ha’betarim). On a separate occasion, the Ineffable name commanded Avraham

    to undergo circumcision or brit milah. Both verses are explicit.

    There are more: “And He said unto him: I am God…”, “And Avram called there on the name of God”, and
    “And, behold, God stood beside him and said: I am God…” Here we have proof that the Maker revealed
    Himself to the patriarchs by way of the Ineffable name.
    The second school falls short, for God fulfilled His promises to the patriarchs. It presupposed that He
    conveyed an oath that they would inherit the Holy Land in their lifetimes. That is a blatant
    misstatement. God never uttered such a thing. He did foretell, though, that the fourth generation of

    Hebrews sojourning in a foreign land would emerge to liberate, and take possession of, Israel.

    Other divine promises were made for the patriarchs’ lifetimes, and kept. To Avraham, He foretold that
    he would father children. And he did. Similarly, to Yitzchak and Yaakov, God extended promises.
    Promises were kept, as we read in those sections pertaining to Yitzchak and Yaakov.
     

    One last clarification for the classic Biblical commentators. They argued that God had not performedmiracles for the patriarchs along the lines that He had done for Moshe. For their proof, they bring the example of turning Moshe’s staff into a snake. Or another example of something supernatural that the Creator did for Moshe was the wonder of the prophet’s hand becoming leprous, and then hale again.

    We beg to differ. Actually, God generously dispensed miracles to the patriarchs. To begin with, Avraham
    was saved from Ur Kasdim’s clutches. Being rescued, unscathed, from Pharoah’s lusty play for Sarai also
    ranks as major. Later, the first patriarch experienced supernatural assistance from the Holy One with
    Sedom and Gemorrah, culminating in a successful mission to rescue Lot, against all odds. Or what about
    Lot’s wife’s punishment? She morphed into a pillar of salt. Given this raft of believe-it-or-not wonders,
    who can put forth that God had not performed prodigiously for the patriarchs, as He had with Moshe at
    this early stage in his career as a seer?

     

    We now turn and suggest what amounts to a truer read of our verse. Backdrop is essential. At the time when God reached out to Moshe, both he and nation had grown disillusioned over the prospect of evergaining freedom from Egyptian taskmasters. Centuries of exile stripped slaves of their faith, relegatingredemption or geulah to no more than a quixotic pipe dream of yesteryear. “For since I came to Pharoah to speak in Your name…”

    The Maker disabused the prophet of a mindset maligned by despair. Geulah, the prophet heard at
    present, was a foregone conclusion. It would absolutely come to fruition for multiple reasons. For

    brevity, we bring only the first rationale.

    What is the simple reading or pshat on our verse? Let us focus on divine communication, from the
    perspective of Hashem. He had not revealed Himself to the patriarchs in a manner by which they could

    know Him. God’s messages had come via an intermediary, and not directly or panim el panim.

    While it is true that those non-physical intermediators received their dispatches from Above, still and all,
    an intimate peek into God remained blocked. A barrier held the patriarchs at bay. When we review the
    verse, inserting the Hebrew names for God, we gain clarity: “And I appeared…as Kel Shakai, but by My

    name [Hashem], I made Me not known to them.”

    The verse informs us of a distance or gap separating the patriarchs and Hashem. Divine communication
    had been carried out via Kel Shakai’s angelic messengers. And yes, even on occasion, the
    communication had come about through His name – Hashem. Crucial is this. Intimacy or panim el panim

    had never been granted to the patriarchs.

    This was about to change. Geulah absolutely had to transpire (That was God’s solemn oath.). While in
    the desert, redemption would enable Moshe and every single Hebrew access or entrée to God – directly
    – each according to their spiritual preparedness and piety. Read: panim el panim. Said intimacy opens
    up avenues to know God’s glory and exaltedness. The patriarchs never attained panim el panim, their
    prophecies a notch below. In sum, a sea-change was in the offing, since God sought to upgrade His
    relationship with the Jews. For that to happen, Geulah became more than an expedient; it became a

    must.

     

  • Parashat Vayakhel

    “And Moses assembled all the congregation of the Children of Israel,
    and said unto them: These are the words which God has commanded,
    that you should do them.”

    Abarbanel notes that the lead verse requires explanation. If Moshe gathered the Hebrews for the
    purpose of issuing a command to build the Tabernacle, as it says, “These are the words which God has
    commanded, that you should do them”,     why does he first start with the mitzvah to observe Shabbat:
    “Six days shall work be done?”

    The question looms larger, Abarbanel asks, because the obligation to keep Shabbat had been broached
    in an earlier section, the one discussing manna. Further, the Jews heard a repeat of the Shabbat
    mitzvah, later on Sinai. Moreover, four chapters earlier, yet another reference to Shabbat observance
    was mentioned. Hence, Abarbanel’s glaring question here: Why bring up Shabbat again?

    One final point. In last week’s section, Ki Tisa, we find the Torah issued a warning to heed Shabbat after
    wrapping up a broad discussion on the Mishkan. Yet, here we find the order reversed. Shabbat gets
    mentioned prior to verses speaking about the Mishkan.

    Abarbanel supplies a timeline. After Moshe descended from Sinai, he commanded the entire nation,
    men and women, to gather outside of the camp, specifically in his lecture hall, or the Tent of Assembly.
    The prophet intended to inform the masses what God had commanded. That is, each person should
    donate to the Tabernacle enterprise. This follows the opinion of the classic Biblical scholar, the Ramban.

    Likely, this assembly took place the day after Moshe had descended from Sinai. He conveyed to his
    brethren that the Maker had forgiven and pardoned them for their iniquity. Moreover, the Shechinah
    would rest in their midst. Wonders, stupendous wonders, would He do for them, beyond the likes of
    which had ever been performed – anywhere or anytime.

    Of course, the Hebrews delighted in the news. Ecstatic. That is when Moshe saw fit to teach them about
    the Mishkan. To be clear, the prophet had learned of this divine commandment as he sat upon Sinai,
    before his co-religionists had built a Molten Calf. When the Creator reconciled with His nation,
    evidenced by the giving of the second set of Tablets, God entered into a covenant: the Shechinah would
    dwell among the Hebrews.

    The loving and intimate relationship between the Jews and God had been repaired, restored. Reclaimed
    affection expression may be summed up in an earlier verse: “Build Me a Tabernacle that I may dwell in
    your midst.”     Thus, after divine anger subsided, a time of renewed intimacy had been ushered in.

    That is precisely when Moshe bid his brethren to build the Tabernacle: “These are the words which God
    has commanded, that you should do them.”     At this juncture, the prophet cautioned the Hebrews to
    observe Shabbat. This signaled that Mishkan’s and its vessels’ activities would take place during the six
    work days of the week, Shabbat excluded, for it is a holy time for God. Put differently, Mishkan work
    does not trump Shabbat sanctity, with its concomitant dos and don’ts.

    This section’s third verse reads: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath
    day.”     Prohibiting fire on Shabbat taught the Jews that the sanctity of the seventh day exceeded that of
    the Jewish festivals, where fire is permitted (in certain cases of food preparation or ochel nefesh).

    With this important element in place, Abarbanel answers his original question regarding the seeming
    peculiar insertion of the Shabbat verse in a section otherwise dedicated to the building of the
    Tabernacle. It conveys the sanctity of the Sabbath, one which ranked higher even than the other major
    festivals, celebratory occasions where fire may be permitted under proper circumstances (ochel nefesh).

    As for the words “throughout your habitations”, they teach another Shabbat rule. Namely, the Hebrews
    are obliged to keep Shabbat wherever they reside, in the Holy Land or elsewhere. Major Biblical writers
    learn something else about this prepositional phrase: “throughout your habitations.” The prohibition
    does not apply to the priests engaged in Mishkan activities (at least some of the holy activities, but
    that’s for another blog).

  • Parshat Mishpatim : An Excerpt

    "In sum, tight linkage between the Utterances (10 Commandments) and accompanying laws convincingly persuades readers that Parashat Mishpatim conveys divine directives unlike any manmade moral code."

    Shemot: Sinai Rules, page 464

  • Parshat Terumah: An Excerpt

    “And God said to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and collect a separated portion. From
    those who are generous you shall take a separated portion for Me.”

    ‘In a general Torah sense and here in this section in particular, Heaven’s modus operandi comes out in
    full splendor. That is, Hashem desired to increase both the Hebrew people’s merit and Moshe’s
    prominence. In our context, it means that Heaven did away with celestial intermediaries. In their
    place, the Almighty instituted His direct divine guidance to the Jews and to Moshe, their faithful
    shepherd.’

    Page 9 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

  • Parshat Vayikra :An Excerpt

    “And God called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of the Meeting. Speak unto the
    Children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you brings an offering unto God, you shall
    bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or the flock.”

    ‘Heaven acknowledged how priests deserved the Jews’ financial support. Through a system of tithes
    and gifts, their needs were taken care of. This not only freed them from having to make a living, but it
    also provided repose and sufficient peace of mind to allow them to do their jobs maximally. An
    equitable arrangement assured steady income for the Kohanim and their families.

    Clearly the Torah foresaw how priests, a branch of the tribe of Levi, would accede to special status
    within the national fabric and rise to predominance. Their admirable erudition, refinement, and
    character were also marked by outward appearances. In this, particular vestments played a pivotal
    role…'


    Page 10 Vayikra vol. I: The Meat of the Matter

  • Parshat Yitro: The Ten Commandments

    Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
    commentator. We read in Exodus chapter 20, parshat Yitro, that the Ten Commandments were transmitted to the
    Hebrews on Mount Sinai.

    “And God spoke all these words saying: I am God, Who brought you out
    of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no
    other gods before Me…”

    Abravanel discusses exactly what makes the Ten Commandments stand out from the rest of the Bible. It
    is, not surprisingly, an elaborate discourse. See Abravanel’s World for the entirety of it. Here, we will
    share with Bible students Abravanel’s three, salient observations.

    One has to do with the Speaker – God. In contrast to all of the other divine commandments, only the
    Decalogue was from Heaven, sans an intermediary. That is, when it came to the other commandments,
    Moses delivered them to the Hebrews, at God’s behest. Not so with the Ten Commandments. Neither
    angel or seraph or prophet uttered them; they came directly from Above. On that historic day, the
    Creator of heaven and earth descended, as it were, and addressed His nation. Understand, therefore,
    the Decalogues’ intrinsic prominence.

    Two stresses the audience, the Chosen People. With the other commandments, God transmitted them
    to a single person, Moses, albeit His specially-designated messenger who had shown himself worthy.
    Moses’ brethren were not privy to hear what Moses heard, nor see what he had seen. How different
    were the Ten Commandments! Every person, young and old, heard and understood God’s words. The
    myriads of Jews were an integral part of the conversation with the Divine. The fire at Sinai they beheld;
    the audible voice they heard.

    Three emphasizes the material upon which the Ten Commandments were written – all etched in stone.
    No other verse in the Torah, no other commandment had been so indelibly engraved. Rather, they were
    transcribed from God to Moses, who wrote them on parchment. As for the Ten Commandments,
    moreover, no engraver’s tool had been utilized. It was the Maker’s handiwork, His imprint upon rock.
    Moses hadn’t participated an iota in it.

    In brief, Bible students are hereby apprised of the Ten Commandment’s uniqueness, their
    otherworldliness. The Almighty alone put His imprimatur on them, in a manner of speaking, as
    evidenced by the three reasons stated above.

  • Prophets and Prophecy

     

    “And I appeared unto Avraham, unto Yitzchak, and unto Yaakov, as God

    Almighty, but by My name [Hashem] I made Me not known to them.”  Parashat Va’era, First Aliyah

    Classic commentators struggled to make sense of our verse. Some hold that it means that God had not
    revealed Himself to them via the Ineffable name. Others posit that Hashem made promises to them, but
    did not fulfil them. Both positions are weak, as we shall now demonstrate.
     
    The first school missed the mark because the Torah writes that God, in His Ineffable name, did
    communicate with Avraham. In one instance, the Ineffable name entered into a covenant with Avraham
    (in Hebrew the brit bein ha’betarim). On a separate occasion, the Ineffable name commanded Avraham
    to undergo circumcision or brit milah. Both verses are explicit.
    There are more: “And He said unto him: I am God…”, “And Avram called there on the name of God”, and
    “And, behold, God stood beside him and said: I am God…” Here we have proof that the Maker revealed
    Himself to the patriarchs by way of the Ineffable name.

     

    The second school falls short, for God fulfilled His promises to the patriarchs. It presupposed that He
    conveyed an oath that they would inherit the Holy Land in their lifetimes. That is a blatant misstatement.
    God never uttered such a thing. He did foretell, though, that the fourth generation of Hebrews
    sojourning in a foreign land would emerge to liberate, and take possession of, Israel.
    Other divine promises were made for the patriarchs’ lifetimes, and kept. To Avraham, He foretold that
    he would father children. And he did. Similarly, to Yitzchak and Yaakov, God extended promises.
    Promises were kept, as we read in those parshiyot pertaining to Yitzchak and Yaakov.
     
    One last clarification for the classic Biblical commentators. They argued that God had not performed
    miracles for the patriarchs along the lines that He had done for Moshe. For their proof, they bring the
    example of turning Moshe’s staff into a snake. Or another example of something supernatural that the
    Creator did for Moshe was the wonder of the prophet’s hand becoming leprous, and then hale again.
    We beg to differ. Actually, God generously dispensed miracles to the patriarchs. To begin with, Avraham
    was saved from Ur Kasdim’s clutches. Being rescued, unscathed, from Pharoah’s lusty play for Sarai also
    ranks as major. Later, the first patriarch experienced supernatural assistance from the Holy One with
    Sedom and Gemorrah, culminating in a successful mission to rescue Lot, against all odds. Or what about
    Lot’s wife’s punishment? She morphed into a pillar of salt. Given this raft of believe-it-or-not wonders,
    who can put forth that God had not performed prodigiously for the patriarchs, as He had with Moshe at
    this early stage in his career as a seer?

     

    We now turn and suggest what amounts to a truer read of our verse. Backdrop is essential. At the time
    when God reached out to Moshe, both he and nation had grown disillusioned over the prospect of ever
    gaining freedom from Egyptian taskmasters. Centuries of exile stripped slaves of their faith, relegating
    redemption or geulah to no more than a quixotic pipe dream of yesteryear. “For since I came to Pharoah
    to speak in Your name…”
     
    The Maker disabused the prophet of a mindset maligned by despair. Geulah, the prophet heard at
    present, was a foregone conclusion. It would absolutely come to fruition for multiple reasons. For
    brevity, we bring only the first rationale.

     

    What is the simple reading or pshat on our verse? Let us focus on divine communication, from the
    perspective of Hashem. He had not revealed Himself to the patriarchs in a manner by which they could
    know Him. God’s messages had come via an intermediary, and not directly or panim el panim.
    While it is true that those non-physical intermediators received their dispatches from Above, still and all,
    an intimate peek into God remained blocked. A barrier held the patriarchs at bay. When we review the
    verse, inserting the Hebrew names for God, we gain clarity: “And I appeared…as Kel Shakai, but by My
    name [Hashem], I made Me not known to them.”
    The verse informs us of a distance or gap separating the patriarchs and Hashem. Divine communication
    had been carried out via Kel Shakai’s angelic messengers. And yes, even on occasion, the
    communication had come about through His name – Hashem. Crucial is this. Intimacy or panim el panim
    had never been granted to the patriarchs.
    This was about to change. Geulah absolutely had to transpire (That was God’s solemn oath.). While in
    the desert, redemption would enable Moshe and every single Hebrew access or entrée to God – directly
    – each according to their spiritual preparedness and piety. Read: panim el panim (face to face). Said intimacy opens up
    avenues to know God’s glory and exaltedness. The patriarchs never attained panim el panim, their
    prophecies a notch below. In sum, a sea-change was in the offing, since God sought to upgrade His
    relationship with the Jews. For that to happen, geulah became more than an expedient; it became a

    must.

  • The Bible is Not Mythology

    “And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the
    earth…that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that were fair.
    And they took them wives…The Nephilim were in the earth in those
    days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
    daughters of men. And they bore children to them. The same were the
    mighty that were of old, the men of renown.”

    Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
    time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
    offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

    In Genesis chapter 6, the Bible brings a narrative that reads more like Greek or Roman
    mythology than Holy Writ.

    Abravanel launches an investigation: Who were these “sons of God?” And who were the fair maidens
    who captivated them with bewitching appeal?

    Some commentators suggested that the “sons of God” were princes and of blue blood. Others posited
    that these men were clairvoyants or astrologists. They charted the zodiac, peeked into the future, and
    ascertained which women would give birth to children who would, in time, become worthy men.

    Finally, some sages put forth that the “sons of God” were angels. They write that the angels were the
    “Nephilim”, referred to in our verses above. “Nephilim”, they claim, carries an immoral or unethical
    connotation. The Hebrew term “Nephilim” is closely related to another Hebrew word, “noflim”, which
    means “fallers” or “falling.” These rabbis borrow “noflim,” per se, and turn it into “the fallen”, as in to
    fall from grace.

    Asserting that the “sons of God” means angels, for a simple reason, does not meet Abravanel’s criterion
    for a straightforward interpretation of the Bible. Angels are wholly intelligent and incorporeal beings.
    Moreover, according to Abravanel, angels have no physical impulses with zero inclination to sin. Thus,
    wrongdoing for these heavenly facilitators is a non-starter.

    As to the identity of these “sons of God”, Abravanel offers two responses. We offer one below, though
    in shorthand.

    “Sons of God” may have been descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. The reason why the
    Bible characterizes Seth’s seed as “sons of God” is because they were, well, godly and pious. Insofar as
    they were pure in character and deed, the Bible lauds them as “sons of God.”

    Who, then, were the “daughters of men?” Abravanel answers that they hailed from Cain, the first born
    of Adam and Eve, born of dubious circumstances, as an earlier blog has ascertained. Since Cain tilled the
    soil, the Bible refers to the women as daughters of man, as in farmer. In Hebrew the generic term for
    “man” (adam) shares its root with “land” (adamah).

    In sum, we have established that the “sons of God” could not possibly have been angels. But now that
    Abravanel identified the suitors and the bevy of beauties, there still remain questions: Why does the
    Bible seem to disparage their marriages, putting the matchmaking in a negative and lopsided light?

    Further, what shall we say about the “Nephilim?” If they weren’t crestfallen, heavenly angels, then who
    were they?

    For the fuller discussion on both of these topics, see Abravanel’s World of Torah. There, Bible students
    will learn why Heaven frowned on Seth’s descendants marrying the descendants of Cain. They will also
    read why certain people were designated or labeled “Nephilim.”

  • The Neglected Prophet

    Parashat Va’era, First Aliyah

     

    “And Moshe spoke thusly to the Children of Israel but they did not heed Moshe on account of
    exasperation and overexertion.” Work rendered the Hebrews emotionally drained and physically
    overtaxed. They had neither patience nor time for Moshe’s assurances. His words fell on deaf ears.
    Yes, they believed in the shepherd from Midian’s clarion call for deliverance, but these wearied
    workers were essentially oblivious to Moshe’s rousing seminars…”

     

    Page 103 Shemot vol. I, Sinai Rules

  • The Neglected Prophet: Moses

    "“And Moshe (Moses) spoke thusly to the Children of Israel but they did not heed Moshe on account of
    exasperation and overexertion.” Work rendered the Hebrews emotionally drained and physically
    overtaxed. They had neither patience nor time for Moshe’s assurances. His words fell on deaf ears.
    Yes, they believed in the shepherd from Midian’s clarion call for deliverance, but these wearied

    workers were essentially oblivious to Moshe’s rousing seminars…”

    Page 103 Shemot vol. I, Sinai Rules

  • The Ten Plagues of Egypt

    Parshot Bo:“And Moshe and Aharon went in unto Pharoah, and said…let My people
    go, that they may serve Me….Else, if you refuse to let My people go,
    behold, tomorrow will I bring locusts unto your border…”

     

    We ask: Why did the Torah’s arranger of the parshiyot begin this parashah with the plague of locusts?
    After all, it is not the Torah’s launch into what would eventually stretch out to ten plagues or makkot.
    Locusts rank eighth out of ten. Even if we look to the Passover Haggadah for a clue, we come up empty.
    In it, Rabbi Yehudah provides a mnemonic device to memorize all ten plagues, grouping them into three
    sub-units (group 1 is blood, frogs, and lice; group 2 is wild beasts, pestilence, and boils; group 3 is hail,
    locusts, darkness, and firstborn). Our parashah beginning with the third group’s second plague appears
    arbitrary, and requires explanation.

     

    To answer, it seems that the Torah’s arranger was anything but desultory. Here are two reasons that
    explain why our parashah leads with locusts. From the eighth plague (locusts) onward, Pharoah and his
    advisors began to fear God and His plagues before they struck. Until this juncture, dread registered after
    they landed. However, from locusts until the tenth plague, Pharoah shook in his boots at the mere
    mention of an imminent plague. Thus, when Moshe uttered a warning about locusts, Pharoah and his
    council shuddered. Consequently, for plagues eight, nine, and ten, the moment Moshe spoke of trouble,
    Egyptians sought to appease the prophet, singing a different tune.
    Since locusts mark Pharoah’s new mindset, one that warmed up the monarch to the idea of Hebrews
    leaving, our parashah leads with them. Parashat Bo, then, segues into the Hebrews’ exodus and
    redemption.

     

    Here is the second reason that our parashah commences with locusts. It has to do with the root cause or
    composition of locusts, darkness, and death of the firstborn. Each shares a common, essential element:
    air. Additionally, all three blackened the land. A verse concerning locusts says: “For they covered the
    face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened.” A similar drabby description is documented for
    the ninth plague of darkness: “And God said to Moshe, stretch out your hand…that there may be
    darkness over the land of Egypt….” Finally, with the death of the firstborn, we learn of the H-hour. It was
    midnight, per: “And it came to pass at midnight, that God smote all the firstborn…” Because of the
    commonality of each of these three plagues, the Torah’s arranger saw fit to place them together as a

    cohesive unit in our parashah.

    Parashat Bo, First Aliyah, based on Abravanel’s World of Torah

Page 3 of 3

PRAISE FOR THE WORK

An outstanding translation of the fascinating commentary by the last of the Spanish greats.
Rabbi Berel Wein
A major contribution to Torah literature.
Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski, MD
An interpretive reading in crisp, contemporary English.... [An] important contribution.
Yitzchok Adlerstein
Rabbi; cofounder, Cross Currents
Rabbi Zev Bar Eitan has embarked on a very ambitious project to make Abarbanel accessible to all Jews regardless of background. Baruch Hashem, he has succeeded admirably.
Rav Yitzchak Breitowitz
Rav, Kehillat Ohr Somayach
In clear, straightforward language…Bar Eitan opens the Abravanel’s world of complex ideas to the layman in a way that it has not been opened before. Highly recommended.
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin
Past President, Rabbinical Council of America; author, Unlocking the Torah Text and Unlocking the Haggada
Rabbi Zev Bar-Eitan…has achieved a rendition of the Abravanel which will enable all English readers to comprehend the depths and innovativeness of the original Hebrew text.
Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff
Professor of Rabbinic Literature, Caroline and Joseph S. Gruss Institute, Yeshiva University
In an accessible and flowing language accompanied by a variety of visual aids, Abravanel is presented to the English reader in all his glory. [An] illuminative commentary.
Rachelle Fraenkel
Torah educator, Midrashot Nishmat and Matan
A masterful rendition…lucid, free-flowing and interesting.
Rabbi Zev Leff
Rabbi, Moshav Matityahu; Rosh Hayeshiva, Yeshiva Gedola Matityahu
I am perusing Vayikra, Vol. I: The Meat of the Matter, which looks very good and interesting.
Rabbi Emanuel Feldman
Rabbi Emeritus, Congregation Beth Jacob, Atlanta
Riveting and flowing elucidation of the text simplifies complex ideas leaving the reader readily able to grasp the Abravanel’s inner meaning and purposeful explanation.
Rabbi Meyer H. May
Executive Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museums of Tolerance
Open[s] our eyes and minds to the fascinating world of the Abravanel and his unique way of analyzing the Torah...in a user-friendly commentary.
Rabbi Steven Weil
Senior Managing Director, OU
Zev eminently succeeds in making the awesome wisdom of Don Isaac available to the English-speaking public. We are in Bar Eitan’s debt.
Rabbi Sholom Gold
Founding Rabbi, Kehillat Zichron Yosef, Har Nof
The translation is as beautiful as the original Hebrew and the English reader loses nothing in this excellent rendition.
Rabbi Allen Schwartz
Congregation Ohab Zedek, Yeshiva University
Abravanel needs a redeemer…Bar Eitan takes on this complex task.
Rabbi Gil Student
Student Action
At once a work of scholarship and a treat for the imagination.… Bar Eitan’s Abravanel presents Exodus as great literature, as exciting and gripping as any great Russian novel.
Rabbi Daniel Landes
Rosh Hayeshivah, Machon Pardes
Zev Bar Eitan has an intimate understanding of two characters: Abravanel and the modern reader. He traverses great distance to bring these two together masterfully.
Avraham Steinberg
Rabbi, Young Israel of the Main Line; Rosh Mesivta, Mesivta High School of Greater Philadelphia
An uncommon treat.… Rabbi Bar Eitan is to be commended for providing an accessible entree to this timeless masterpiece.
Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin
Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto Congregation
Relevant and accessible.… Ideal for teachers as well as Yeshiva High School, Ulpana, Yeshiva and Seminary students alike...a wonderful translation... enjoyable reading....
Rachel Weinstein
Tanach Department, Ramaz Upper School, NY
The clear, easy-to-read language and appended notes and illustrations bring the Abravanel to life, for scholars and laymen alike. A great addition to per¬sonal and shul libraries.
Rabbi Yehoshua Weber
Rabbi, Clanton Park Synagogue, Toronto
Of great value to those who have hesitated to tackle this dense, complex work.… Render[s] the Abravanel’s commentary accessible to the modern reader.
Simi Peters
author, Learning to Read Midrash
A gift to the English-speaking audience.… An important “must have” addition to the English Torah library.
Chana Tannenbaum
EdD, lecturer, Bar-Ilan University
The thoughts of a Torah giant over 500 years ago in terminology understand¬able to the modern reader.
Deena Zimmerman
MD, MPH, IBCLC,author; lecturer
Allows the reader the opportunity to see firsthand the brilliance, creativity, and genius of this 15th-century Spanish biblical commentator.
Rabbi Elazar Muskin
Young Israel of Century City, Los Angeles
An excellent job bringing to life the profound ideas of one of the most original thinkers in Judaism and making them relevant and interesting 500 years later.
Rabbi Dr. Alan Kimche
Ner Yisrael Community, London
I really enjoyed the volume on Bereishis. It opened my eyes to the profundity of the Abravanel's commentary and for that I am ever grateful to you. I recommend it to all my students here at the University of Arizona who are searching for an in-depth understanding of the Chumash. Thank you very much for all your efforts. I am excited to read the next volumes on Shemos and Vayikra!
Rabbi Moshe Schonbrun
Senior educator, JAC University of Arizona
I’ve really enjoyed reading Abravanel's World of Torah. Abravanel was a great and original thinker whose perspective has broadened my understanding of Torah. Rabbi Bar Eitan presents Abravanel’s thought clearly and lucidly. I highly recommend his work. I’ve also really benefitted from being able to email Rabbi Bar Eitan regarding points where I needed further clarity.
Alistair Halpern
London
I want to tell you how much I'm absolutely enjoying Abravanel's World: Bereshit. I'm not much of a Torah scholar, but this is wonderful and terrific due to the seamless integration of Abravanel's thought and Bar Eitan's explication. All the kudos in the world. I'm looking forward to you completing the set.
Michael
New Jersey